KCRag Forum

LenexatoKCMO wrote: reasonable, logical points once again hit the inpenetrable brick wall.  Its like carrying on a debate with the professional spin doctors on political TV shows that just ignore anything inconvenient to their own argument rather than address it - only less talented, and not as well-spoken.

kcdcchef wrote: likewise. you are so amazing to try and converse with on this forum. you try and ignore that making 6m more is not a motive to have it in these huge stadiums.

ok smartguy, if it was not, why have they been doing it for 10 years now?

LenexatoKCMO wrote: reasonable, logical points once again hit the inpenetrable brick wall.  Its like carrying on a debate with the professional spin doctors on political TV shows that just ignore anything inconvenient to their own argument rather than address it - only less talented, and not as well-spoken.

aknowledgeableperson wrote: You are much the same way.  Look at yourself in a mirror and you will see the Chef.  You have stated your point but the counterpoint is the NCAA does not care.  As long as the demand for the tickets is there the Final Four will be in stadiums and not arenas.  Can not get much simpler than that.
The fans eat it up and the NCAA gets more money.  And it will continue until the fans stop buying the tickets.
Besides, the need the extra tickets to take care of the needs of everyone involved.  The schools in the Final Four get a ticket allotment, all sponsors get an allotment, the host school or conference get an allotment, the NCAA organization gets an allotment, and there are probably others that receive allotments also.  After these allotments tickets are available to the general public, which when it is said and done is not as many you may think.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Ahh another poster who either didn't read, or summarily dismissed my points without addressing them.  And you two wonder why folks get frustrated trying to have a conversation with you? 

kcdcchef wrote: again making it personal because you cannot back up your point of view

LenexatoKCMO wrote: Bullshit, he still hasn't addressed my points and neither have you.  You both chose to simply restate your position without any acknowledgement of what else was said.  Of course we all know what your acknowledgment will be "show me proof! show me proof! all appease the great and wise chef's whim's regardless of whether he stays on track or pays the least bit of attention to what anyone else is saying"

What the hell is the point of me even carrying on - you are right Chef - I have never said a damn thing with any vailidity.  I am just making it all up.  I have no knowledge of anything.  You are so great and wise and we all benefit so tremendously by how you illuminate our minds every day with your insight and constructive dialogue and how you manage to argue every god damned post regardless of whether you even believe anything you say.

I give up, I have had enough fucking Chef for a lifetime.

kcdcchef wrote: noone said anything remotely similar to what you said about me, that i am some sort of wise man or something, i am the same as you, a poster on an internet message board, and we all have opinions. people like you tend to confuse people posting opinions as them trying to pass it off as fact.

lock&load wrote: Maybe because you are always trying to pass off opinion as fact.  Lenexa has it right on. Constructive dialogue with chef is a futile endeavor.  Get over yourself.

kcdcchef wrote: and you are really one to talk. you probably did not even know this was a forum. you probably thought it was a show and tell for google searches.

lock&load wrote: Something you amazingly don't know how to do.

kcdcchef wrote: well i do not have my whole day to do internet searches like you, however, luckily for myself and all other posters on here, we have you to do that tirelessly, all day, every day.

lock&load wrote: No, you wouldn't have time to search in between your manifesto length rants and your posting of the same Pittsburgh, Arlington, Cincinnati, Ballparks.com excuses.

kcdcchef wrote: what, you mean my researched stuff about their new downtown stadiums that have done crap for their cities?

lock&load wrote: Your research that you convinently can never back up with a link.  And your "downtown" stadiums that are anything but (Arlington).

aknowledgeableperson wrote: For those who are against the TSC proposals you appear to be really sore about these developments, MLB All-Star Game, Super Bowl, possible NCAA Final Four.  Well, too bad.  These are great events for the area, and especially for downtown.  Is the cost high.  Well, the cost would be very much more if there was a new stadium DT for the Royals and a new stadium for the Chiefs.

With these two issues we are getting like new stadiums with a rolling roof that gives the TSC facility much more flexibility at a cost to a taxpayer the cost of one new stadium ($425M).  Is the interest costs drive it up higher but we would have the same cost escalation building two new stadiums.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

By the way, it would be easy to covert the floor to a basketball floor.  The Chiefs usually replace the turf after the season anyway - even part of it a few times during the season.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: What the hell is the point of me even carrying on - you are right Chef - I have never said a damn thing with any vailidity.  I am just making it all up.  I have no knowledge of anything.  You are so great and wise and we all benefit so tremendously by how you illuminate our minds every day with your insight and constructive dialogue and how you manage to argue every god damned post regardless of whether you even believe anything you say.